1. Prosecutes three offences, which have a behavioral, structural and subjective element
1.1. Attemp to monopolize
1.1.1. Str. element:Dangerous probability of acquiring monopoly power
1.1.1.1. It does not adress firms that already have a relevant market. The attemp offence is created to catch practices that are likely to create monopoly power.
1.1.2. Behavioral element: Anticompetitive conduct
1.2. Monopolization
1.3. Abuse of dominant position
1.3.1. Str: dominance
1.3.1.1. Is the same as monopoly power: Ability to raise price, and persist during a signifcant period.
1.3.2. Beh. Abuse of dominance
1.4. Behavorial, Structural, and subjective element
1.4.1. What about the subjective element?
1.4.1.1. "No monopoly monopolizes unconciously", SO
1.4.1.1.1. 1. You can infer intent from a conduct 2.We shall not prosecut good competition 3.The concep of abuse is objective (EU). THAT IS, We assume that subjective element is always present if the others are present
1.4.2. Structural element Monopoly power
1.4.2.1. In US/EU is associated with diffrent market shares:US >75%, EU >40% is monopoly. EU is stricter
1.4.2.2. But, when it is for an attempt to monopolize, in US as low as 30% is OK to investigate.
1.4.2.3. They want also to asses monopoly power through
1.4.2.3.1. How long the monopoly will last
1.4.2.3.2. Potential competition
1.4.3. Behavioral Element: Ant.com. conduct
1.4.3.1. EU/US n terms of keeping their dominant position. US is more lax. in EU E the concept of fairness
1.4.3.1.1. Unfair prices
1.4.3.1.2. Unfair trading conditions
1.4.3.2. EU vs US in terms of benefiting from its dom position
1.4.3.2.1. Predatory pricing
1.4.3.2.2. Loyalty rebates
1.4.3.2.3. Tying
1.4.3.2.4. Refusal to deal/license
1.4.3.2.5. Exclusive dealings
1.4.3.2.6. The theory of foreclosure
2. Policy choices, that is whats important in terms of policy when a dominant position is spotted
2.1. Under a dominat firm, what should be the policy. TWO QUESTIONS:
2.1.1. Should There be a ceiling of what the dominant firms can appropiate?
2.1.1.1. In the present: -US: NO -EU:YEs
2.1.2. Should they be allowed to keep fircely competing?
2.1.2.1. In present: We should employ the PRONG test
2.1.2.1.1. PRONG TEST:
2.1.3. BUT! Before US and EU had these obejctives, in the past:
2.1.3.1. Protecting small businesses (Harvard School)
2.1.3.2. Fairness and Justice
2.1.3.3. Equity and distribution
2.1.3.4. Creation of an internal Market
2.1.3.5. They were very OVERDETERENT!